Talk:Low-carbohydrate diet/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reword "Carbohydrate-restricted dieting does not appear to be helpful in managing type 1 diabetes"

I want to do a change, but since Im sure this will be controversial (i.e. I will be reverted in <10 minutes) I will try to argue my case here first. The statements that I want to change to either something like some "recent research shows that low carb diets can be helpful for type 1 diabetics" or a statement that states that some research states that it have no effect and some that it might be good. The source that we have now to state that there is no effect is this which clearly states that it can't say anything, Due to the significant heterogeneity of included studies, an overall effect could not be determined.. If we read this page and the source we can see that this page states that low-carbohydrate diets as having less than 20% carbohydrate content. If we read the source it states in the HbA1c section

Eight studies investigated the effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on glycaemic control using HbA1c [8, 10, 20–24, 26] (Table 2). One study [26] reported a follow-up value for HbA1c but did not provide baseline data so was not included for this outcome. Four studies [10, 20, 22–23] reported non-significant changes in HbA1c with a low-carbohydrate diet and three studies [8, 21, 24] reported statistically significant reductions (P < 0.05). Of the two studies that compared a low-carbohydrate diet to a higher-carbohydrate diet [10, 20], neither showed a significant difference between groups at follow-up.

So one [26] did not say anything, and three states statistically significant reduction. (I did not check these studies). So 4 no effect vs 3 effect vs 1 dont know, clear right? but

• 10 states The carbohydrate restricted group had significant reductions in HbA1c (63 to 55 mmol/mol (8.9-8.2%), p＜0.05) Why is this study counted as non-significant? I only have access to the abstract, so maybe someone can check if the text contradicts the abstract?
• 20, states The metabolic effects of high-carbohydrate (70%), high-fiber (70 g) (HCHF) and low-carbohydrate (39%), low-fiber (10 g) (LCLF) diets were examined so it fails our definition for less than 20% by about twice the amount!
• 22 The diets had similar CHO contents (26 and 22% of energy intake) but differed markedly in fat (53 vs. 16% energy) and protein (20 vs. 62% energy). So we are testing 26% vs 22% carbs (not low carb as per our definition), and 53% vs 16% fat so this is not a good study to test the effect of low carb, low fat possibly but not low carb?
• 23 Dietary data were available for 46 participants. Post course reductions were seen in median [IQR] energy kcal/d (1799 [1521-1931] to 1592 [1378-1940], p=0.002), fibre g/1000kcal (14 [12-16] to 13 [11-15], p=0.047), protein g/day (89 ([78-108] to 82 [74-93], p=0.001) and carbohydrate g/day (198 [172-330] to 162 [143-204], p=<0.001). So we are testing (198 [172-330] to 162 [143-204] g/carb per day, a man is supposed to require about 2,500 calories, there is about 4 calories per gram per gram carb, so 143 grams carb is 143*4 = 572 calories, 572/2500 = 0.22 which is more than 20% in the extreme case, so again not a low carb diet.

So I think that this source should not be used for this article?? Or we can do some OR and decide that it actually says that low carb as per our definition works for diabetics :-) ?? On the other hand we do have our source 1 that states "The benefits of carbohydrate restriction in diabetes are immediate and well documented." , "Dietary carbohydrate restriction reliably reduces high blood glucose" , "It has never shown side effects comparable with those seen in many drugs" , "the first approach to treating type 2 diabetes and as the most effective adjunct to pharmacology in type 1."

I think this is worth mentioning? and I think we should remove the current statement until someone can find a good source for it and then possibly show both sides of the argument. --Stefan-S ^talk

We could follow PMID 30362180. In summary there is no good evidence that low-carb diets are useful for T1D, they are hard to follow, and give rise to concerns about adverse health effects. I don't think there are "two sides" to the argument here. (And incidentally, this source also includes a fair bit about ketoacidosis risk.) Alexbrn (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Now we write, not helpful, source one clearly states helpful, to me that is two sides? But if you agree to change from not helpful to no good evidence I consider that to be a big win :-) and will agree, but if you want to put in not helpful ANYWHERE in the page I want maybe helpful somewhere

To clarify

• Now we state Carbohydrate-restricted dieting does not appear to be helpful in managing type 1 diabetes., the current source states Due to the significant heterogeneity of included studies, an overall effect could not be determined. This review presents all available evidence on low-carbohydrate diets for type 1 diabetes and suggests an urgent need for more primary studies.. I think we are stating does not appear helpful, when the source states, the overall effect could not be determined. So, IMHO, not only a bad source, but we are not quoting it correctly?
• I can't read PMID 30362180 sorry, i can only read the abstract, but my interpretation of the abstract is, we don't know and the current studies that appear to be showing good result but have issues since they are with highly motivated self-selected individuals, they then say These confounders limit the ability to determine the extent of the impact of dietary carbohydrate restriction on glycaemic outcomes, so again, they state we don't know. Then they list the list of possible problem, like Adherence to restricted diets is challenging and can have an impact on social normalcy and other things. So again the source states we dont know, so lets write that. And then what about source 1, why not write about that? --Stefan-S ^talk 14:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

What is the source that "clearly states helpful" ? Alexbrn (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

THIS source one that we already link to in the page. Ok if you want to pick words it states The benefits of carbohydrate restriction in diabetes are immediate and well documented. and Here we present 12 points of evidence supporting the use of low-carbohydrate diets as the first approach to treating type 2 diabetes and as the most effective adjunct to pharmacology in type 1. They represent the best-documented, least controversial results., Im fine with other wording if that is what you want. --Stefan-S ^talk 14:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Feinman argued (as one would expect) that low-carb is a useful "adjunct" for T1D - the article is mostly about T2D. We should use the up-to-date review from the British Diabetic Association, linked above. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what Feinman have to do with things? In the article points 1,6,7,8,10 and 11 is for both T1 and T2 and states no harm and that low carb is good, point 2,3 and 4 talks about obesity and weight which are associated with T2, so that the paper talks about that does not take away any credit for T1, it just give the paper more coverage. Point 5 talks about adherence (studies for T2 but is relevant to T1 also). 9 is about reduction on micro and macro vascular disease, should apply to high HbA1c, but studies are only abut T2 (i.e. adding evidence from T2, but does not focus on T2), point 12 same thing, talking about risk of drugs for T2, drugs that T1 dont take, so again coverage, not lack of focus for T1. The study is less than 5 years so within MEDRS limit, and again the British Diabetic Association does say good, they say not know. Why not use a current study that says good, instead of using a study that says we dont know, and write is bad?? Im very confused with your arguments. Please explain. --Stefan-S ^talk 16:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Feinman is the lead author and the article clearly says it is providing points and articulating the what the authors' "feel". 5 years is not a "limit". We have an on-point 2018 source now in any case which supersedes the earlier one so I have used that. Alexbrn (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Euglycemic ketoacidosis in health people, occasionally or once?

@Alexbrn: you reverted me, I stated that we should not say "However, the state of ketosis induced by the diet can occasionally progress to ketoacidosis in healthy persons" when the source states

"There was only a single case of euglycemic ketoacidosis reported with diets like Dukan diet, diet coke, and fruitarian diet each and a single case each with hyperthyroidism, bariatric surgery, and salicylate use22,24 (Figure 2). Most of these patients had an underlying condition like pregnancy, asthma, pneumonia, or hyperthyroidism, which might have made them vulnerable to develop ketoacidosis. Our patient is unique as she was a previously healthy individual who presented as syncope mimicking cerebrovascular accident. The underlying cause was the Atkins diet, which has never been reported before as the cause of severe NDKA."

So I think it is quite clear that the source states that there is only one case of a healthy person? I dont understand what you mean "Atkins diet and other previously reported diets like Dukan, fruitarian, aspartame, and other low-carb high-fat diets should be considered [...] for causes of high anion gap metabolic acidosis", means. I think should be considered does not say, occasionally health people get ketoaciosis? It states that it should be considered, and only that. The part that I quote above states that only one person have been healthy and gotten ketoacidosis, so shoulden't we be clearer in the article? --Stefan-S ^talk 14:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I suppose the question is whether the case is generalized (by RS) into being seen as potential hazard rather than a freak one off. I think so, both from the source we cite and from PMID 30194696, a stronger source which we already cite. It says:

There are many other potential hazards reflected by case reports of LCDs, including Wernicke’s encephalopathy (48) and opticneuropathy (49) from thiamine deficiency, acute coronary syndrome (50,51), ketoacidosis (52) and anxiety disorder (53).

I think we can just reword this to say ketoacidosis is a potential risk of low-carbohydrate dieting (and the other conditions should be covered too in time). Alexbrn (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't read that source, the abstract says nothing about ketoacidosis, can you give me the name/link to the (52) source, to see if it is freely accessible?? --Stefan-S ^talk 15:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Reference 52 is PMID 26428083. Alexbrn (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!! So it is included as ref 6 in the meta study, it is the case of pregnancy mentioned in my quote above, interesting that peer reviewed paper considers pregnancy to be a not health state, nevermind, we must follow what the sources say right. So I still think that your source above states that there is only one case of a health person getting ketoacidosis. Therefor I think we should change the text to something much more restrictive, also more restrictive than your next suggestion a potential risk of low-carbohydrate dieting, if we want to even talk about a single case?? Is that relevant? Then at least say single case, don't say occasionally? --Stefan-S ^talk 15:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I think here it's worth mentioning that these cautions stem just from case(s) as that lets readers know the lowish level of evidence. But it is covered in the relevant RS so it is due. I've tweaked in line with what I think you're getting at - see what you think! Alexbrn (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm decently ok with the first part of the sentence(I really don't think the whole sentence should be there since it is only one case, but I give up that fight). But I don't think one case (even if from a RS) is enough to put that second part in. I think it does not have enough weight and even if the source as such is RS, if that source have only found one case then what kind of systematic review is that, the purpose of systematic reviews is to summarise studies and to pick one case is not doing that so we are abusing the fact that they claim it to be a review? We can just as well use that single paper that described it? And then I'm sure that if I did that you would say it is not MEDRS since it is a primary source? So no I don't agree. Also the source dont say should be considered a potential hazard, the closest it says is Physicians should consider diet-associated ketoacidosis in previously nondiabetic patients presenting with severe metabolic acidosis. So that is a bit different?? But this is interesting, I have more issues with this article. --Stefan-S ^talk 12:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the point the source is making is that adverse effects are generally under reported/investigated, as suggested by the existence of case reports. Alexbrn (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

ok, agree, but then we should write that? and nothing else? We write what the sources write, nothing else, or??? I'm confused on how you mean that we should write 'should be considered a potential hazard if the the point the source is making is effects are generally under reported/investigated. --Stefan-S ^talk 13:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

We make that point too, like the source. I think what we have is faithful to the source. Alexbrn (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Stefan-S: Now you have removed all mention of ketoacidosis, and added the same point twice. What is going on? Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see that you added that other statement below. So then I remove the one I questioned above?? I can't read the source you use, I can only read the abstract and it does not say anything about adverse effects you quote, it does talk about ketoacidosis for T1. I'm still not convinced that the previous source is good enough, I tried to read WP:MEDRS, it states Lower quality evidence (such as case reports) or non-evidence (such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom) are avoided., so even if you have a review, it contains only one case study, so can we use that source then? You are much better at MEDRS than me, but I would be very surprised if that was the intent of MEDRS?? --Stefan-S ^talk 14:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. We don't use non-MEDRS sources (like case reports or RCTs) - they need to be validated/given weight by use in secondary sources, which we do use. An on-point systematic review of systematic reviews in Obesity is about as good a source as we can possibly have for this topic. It concludes that based on these case reports, and the lack of interest by most studies, there is cause for concern about some specific potential hazards. We reflect that. In a section on "safety" this is completely relevant. I'm having trouble understanding the objection. Alexbrn (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

No objection if we remove the first statement and keep the second with an addition of ketoacidosis if we state case reports give rise to concerns of other potential risks. I still think it is a wrong use of sources but at least I'm ok with the compromise. --Stefan-S ^talk 14:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I have updated. I am concerned that your edit removed all mention of ketoacidosis, duplicated a point, and left our article not making sense with a reference to "other potential risks" which no longer made sense in context. In general we should find the best sources and summarize what they say, not try and approach from a pre-decided POV. Alexbrn (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Source states 'It can be an effective method of weight loss in the short term'!! Why is that Nonsensical?

I was reverted [1] again by @Alexbrn: who stated 'Nonsensical changes'.

I had added "but can be an effective method of weight loss in the short term" the source stated. "BDA Verdict: A carefully dietitian-planned ketogenic diet can be a very effective treatment for people with epilepsy. For weight loss, there’s no magic, the diet works like any other by cutting total calories and removing foods people tend to overeat. Initial side effects may include low energy levels, brain fog, increased hunger, sleep problems, nausea, digestive discomfort, bad breath and poor exercise performance. It can be an effective method of weight loss in the short term with careful planning but it is hard to sustain for many in the long term and most of the initial weight loss seen is often associated with water/fluid losses. It is never a good idea to ‘over-restrict’ any one food group (including carbohydrate), as this can mean it is more difficult to achieve a balanced diet overall with respect to vitamins, minerals and fibre in particular. If consuming high fat then the type of fat needs to be considered."

(Is this really a good source?) It is a annual list of celebrity diets to avoid, it has no references, it is click bait and news bait. Is that what we should use as sources?? Is it a good source just because it is posted on 'https://www.bda.uk.com'? That is not a criteria is it?

So the source states For weight loss, there’s no magic, the diet works like any other by cutting total calories and removing foods people tend to overeat., so it states that the diet works like any other by cutting calories? This is not correct! This diet does not cut calories! So there is a error in that statement. It talks about INITIAL side effects, (see my other revert, not sure if initial will be left or if it is considered a 'stray' word to be removed from that bad? source). Then it states It can be an effective method of weight loss in the short term, a very strange statement to put in the article about the top 5 worst diets? So should we us the gist of the head line or the text? Do we want to use more of that sentence, sure I'm ok, but don't say only but there is no evidence of any distinctive benefit for this purpose, and it have side effects when it is stated that it can be effective and have initial side effects. I will revert back. Please reply here and explain a bit more about what is nonsensical, before you revert me again. To me it is not nonsensical, I'm just trying to follow the source. --Stefan-S ^talk 14:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn had done more reverts to my edits, I reverted the all. See my comments in the edit history. since sources dont apply. Ketofad dont talk about mortality at all! Ting uses Seidelmann as ref , Seidelmann have 37% carbs as his lowest data point that is NOT ketosis, therefore the source is wrong, therefore we should not write that. Please explain whay is nonsensical?? --Stefan-S ^talk 14:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The effectiveness for short-term weight loss (the source goes on to say) is probably due to fluid loss. We'd need to include that to avoid cherry-picking. As to "37%" the source does not use that figure in its discussion. We can't reinterpret away from what the source explicitly says. Inserting ungrammatical gobbets into sentenes and referring to "the definition" when there are several definitions, is nonsensical. Alexbrn (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with stating fluid loss, source says that, it is true that in the first 1 week weight loss on low carb is mostly water, after that you loose fat.

37% is interesting from a wikipedia policy perspective.

• • • The text stated "Both high- and low-carbohydrate diets are associated with increased mortality.
    • the source [2] states, "Observational data suggest long-term low carbohydrate intake might be associated with increased mortality.13"
    • ref 13: is [3] an it states '"" In the meta-analysis of all cohorts (432 179 participants), both low carbohydrate consumption (<40%) and high carbohydrate consumption (>70%) conferred greater mortality risk than did moderate intake," The source also only have data for 37% average carb consumption, which means that it have no data at around 20%, so they have not investigated our definition of low carb.
    • In this page we state "There is a lack of standardization of how much carbohydrate low-carbohydrate diets must have, and this has complicated research.[1] One definition, from the American Academy of Family Physicians, specifies low-carbohydrate diets as having less than 20% carbohydrate content.[2]".
    • So as an example a source says it was better during the medieval times,wikipedia defined that as 5:th to 15:th centure, but the source defins it as staring in the 2:nd century, have 'proof' of that it is better between 2:nd and 5:th centure, should we now state that medieval times where better? I dont think so, I dont think this a case of OR, SYNT but I'm not sure of the policy. What do you say?
    • When it comes to ungrammatical gobbets you should NOT revert ungrammatical gobbets because they are ungrammatical gobbets, you should fix them!
    • Sorry if I don't write comments as fast as you want? And I did not revert any more than you, I made a change, you reverted with a very short comment with NO useful info, then I reverted your revert and wrote a comment. Why was that wrong? Shoulden't you have explained why you reverted first? Sorry I'm confused, but if you assume good faith, I think I am as right as you think, so who behaved the worst? --Stefan-S ^talk 13:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• We follow the source re. mortality. What we do not do is reinterpret the underlying data as you seem to want to do. I have clarified that the authors (explicitly) mean <40% for "low-carb" to avoid any doubt.
• The point about initial weight loss is already covered in the lede, in the right place, in proper English, with a better source.
• As to reverting, maybe try following WP:BRD? Simply re-asserting your changes while failing to engage with the relevant Talk page discussion is not good. Alexbrn (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You broke BRD when you reverted with "'Nonsensical changes", I followed BRD, until you broke it!

WP:BRD states, "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed", is Nonsensical changes specific??

Im ok with your 40% comment, that makes things clearer, thanks for discussing.

I cant find the initial weight loss in lede, anything in the lede should be described in more detail below. The whole sentence " Through celebrity endorsement it has become a popular weight-loss fad diet, but there is no evidence of any distinctive benefit for this purpose, and it may have a number of initial side effects ", is not fit for wikipedia, it is so full of POV words, I really want to change it. But I have no time now, but don't worry, I will be Bold later :-) Remember to be be specific about your reasons in the edit summary if you revert me then. --Stefan-S ^talk 13:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

We say in the lede already: "Carbohydrate-restricted diets can be as effective, or marginally more effective, than low-fat diets in helping achieve weight loss in the short term". Alexbrn (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability

WP:V is a core policy. Wagersmith what are you doing in this edit[4] which makes our content drift away from what the source says? Alexbrn (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. In response to the question above: What I was doing in the edits is indicating that certain statements were opinions that are not shared across the whole scientific community. I see what you mean about drifting away from what the source says, but if the source is only one interpretation of the data, and other researchers interpret the findings differently, shouldn't wikipedia indicate that? As an alternative to my edits, you could say "Dr. so and so states ... to let readers know that this is one authors interpretation, rather than the consensus of the field.

As I say, WP:V is core policy. We do not attribute statements normally as it gives the false impression that things are "just" opinions - see WP:ASSERT. To support your assertion that the science is in dispute, you need to produce reliable sources as evidence. So far as I can see we accurately represent the science as currently set out in the best available sources. Alexbrn (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Bias

This entire article seems written in a biased or one-sided fashion. It also appears any attempts to make corrections or enhance neutrality are quickly reverted. I don’t think this falls within the spirit of WikiPedia. An unfair presentation only misleads casual readers or adds to the confusion of those seeking information (ironically, confusion is mentioned several times in the wiki). NavyEMC (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles are based on reliable sources (and for this topic, WP:MEDRS). What we have looks good. Alexbrn (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I don’t doubt the sources included; it’s the use of absolute and opinionated language and lack of alternative sources. Editorialization of the source material. NavyEMC (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Please WP:INDENT your posts. We should be using the highest-quality sources and summarizing them accurately. Please give a specific example for any problem you see. Alexbrn (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• I, Cobanyastigi, agree that it is very biased. The part about ketogenic diet is stamped "celebrity diet" by giving reference to an opinionated conservative classification (I read the article; it is full of unsupported and verifiably wrong assumptions), and not mentioning other medical sources with a more evidence based approach. A more correct name would be the "anti-inflamatory-diet". Another aspect completely ignored is the evolutionary advantage a "low carb, adequate protein, high healthy fats diet" gave humans, the fattening effect of carbs also being an "evolutionary advantage" at a time when starchy and sugary foods were only available in large amounts a limited period before cold winters. The fattening and crave-inducing aspects of carbs have become disadvantages now that starchy and sugary foodstuffs are pushed everywhere year round, highly processed seed oils containing high ratios of inflammationnary ω-6 to heathy ω-3 fats dominate food options, and cold winters are banished from our lives in an eternal summer (albeit often with less sunshine, less exercise and less sleep) secured by clothes, vehicles, buildings, and technology. Cobanyastigi (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Need more volunteers for Red meat

It seems to me the editors of the likes of Red meat tend to be vegetarians/ vegans (or biased on that direction). We need carnivore editors to provide balanced perspective. There is an editor over there constantly reverting mentioning of the recent review done on red meat: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

It is an inappropriate use of this talk page to recruit editors with a certain perspective to work on a different wikipedia page. Please use the talk page exclusively for discussion of this article. Pattkait (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of clinical guidelines and restructuring

Hello fellow Wikipedians, Upon reviewing this article, many sections don't seem to maintain a NPOV when discussing the evidence surrounding low-carbohydrate diets, especially their role in type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Recent guidelines from both the American Diabetes Association and the Veteran's Health Administration now endorse a low-carbohydrate eating pattern as safe and effective for type 2 diabetes. This could be valuable to include in the article and may help to balance the perspectives represented. It seems the article could use a bit of restructuring also as the headings and subheadings are in an odd order.

I am happy to collaborate on this page but noticed it is flagged as controversial and don't want to make changes without discussion. Pattkait (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

References

The wording about diabetes has been quite thoroughly discussed (see the Talk Page/archives) and in NPOV. Saying the ADA "endorse" low-carb dieting is, on the other hand, not really accurate. Alexbrn (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I see, I initially missed the archived talk pages. I just wanted to note that the ADA guidelines have been revised over the past several years and the most recent lifestyle guidelines from 2019 cited above state the following: "The Mediterranean, Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), and plant-based diets are all examples of healthful eating patterns that have shown positive results in research, but individualized meal planning should focus on personal preferences, needs, and goals. In addition, research indicates that low-carbohydrate eating plans may result in improved glycemia and have the potential to reduce antihyperglycemic medications for individuals with type 2 diabetes." The guidelines remain somewhat ambiguous but have shifted to be more tolerant of low-carb eating patterns. Pattkait (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I think the article represents their view fairly. Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't see these refs in the article, I think it would be nice to add them since they are pretty recent, no? Also I came across this compilation of primary studies, not a reliable source by itself but tracking the citations of those papers might lead to newer systematic reviews?[5] Anyway, from what I know of NAFLD, metabolic syndromes and diets in general, I think what is written here likely reflects the current scientific consensus (but newer guidelines refs is always appreciable!) --Signimu (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  I need to flag this entire page as someone who is knowledgeable of biology. It is far from unbiased. It provides no alternative viewpoint from research and they exist. The research has accelerated a lot since this was created. 

   There is no differentiation between low carb, high protein compared to normal protein. It needs to present from more primary literature on specific findings and directly describe the macrodistributions, that is what is making this page’s conclusions “controversial” and thus inconsistent/inaccurate. 

  Please flag this entire page for bias, not enough primary literature, and not based upon science, but largely interpretation and opinion.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:14E0:FB00:1094:9A06:DF80:3223 (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC) 

Weird paragraph in "Modern low-carbohydrate diets"

In the "Modern low-carbohydrate diets" section there is a paragraph describing glycemic index. Is this a misplaced paragraph? It certainly has nothing to do with the subject of the section and there is no reference to anything in the weird paragraph in any of the rest of the section. I suspect the paragraph was meant for somewhere else.2600:1700:6D90:79B0:ED17:3EFC:AF47:CC3D (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree, looks like WP:SYNTH to me, I removed the paragraph. --Signimu (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Do not agree, it is part of the history of low-carbohydrate diet, undid the removal. I am considering to remove the unnecessary subsection title "Modern low-carbohydrate diets"; The concept of glycemic index is not a diet, but explains how understanding of low-carbohydrate diets evolved. Cobanyastigi (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

After your revert, I looked if I could find a source to make a link, and in fact it appears Jenkins work indeed inspired and even was the scientific groundwork for modern low-carb diets[6]. The content was restored with the revert and I added a sentence to make the link according to the source. But please note that before doing your revert, you should have searched for such a source yourself, a WP:SYNTH sentence can't be restored unless properly cited to clear up any confusion about a possible synthesis. --Signimu (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Review on low-carb

Hey Alexbrn, about your revert[7], I think you refer to the previous sentence about Thom2017's review. While it indeed mentions that there is virtually no difference among diets using similar caloric restriction quantities, here this review specifically tested whether the carbohydrate quantity matters or not. In addition, it also mentions diet duration, which is not studied in other reviews (or at least it's not described here). So I would like to kindly ask you to revise your position and restore the content --Signimu (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

We also say "In the long-term successful weight maintenance is determined by calorie intake, and not by macronutrient ratios". I think we don't need to labour the point further with an outdated source. Alexbrn (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, ok thank you for pointing that out, I added the review there without modifying the content. I think it is a pertinent source addition, as it is not "suggesting" as other sources do but directly tested the hypothesis. I hope you'll agree with that Signimu (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it adds anything, makes the statement WP:OVERCITEd, and is a source that falls outside the 5 year MEDRS window. In such an actively-researched topic we should not be using such outdated sources. Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Point taken, even if I'm more wary than WP:UNDERCITE It's actually cited by PMID 30194696, which is already used in the article, so this source may be further exploited instead. --Signimu (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

My rule of thumb for citations is one is good, two is okay, three or more and something fishy is going on ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I can understand this point of view, me I prefer when there are too many sources than not enough, as it's always possible to check the sources to see if they fail verification (whereas the inverse process, of finding sources to support a statement, is more time consuming and difficult ). Thank you for precising the number of citations you have in mind, I thought overcitation started at 3 --Signimu (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

"The optimal proportion of carbohydrate in a diet for health is thought to be 50-55%."

The reference used to support this assertion (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-weight/diet-reviews/ketogenic-diet/) is an overview of ketogenic diets. It doesn't mention anything about an "optimal proportion of carbohydrate".

It's a weak source, too. Have replaced with something better. Alexbrn (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

In the past I had to search for the source of this claim, and found it, it's clarified in Healthy diet#Others, here's a copy: "Historically, a healthy diet was defined as a diet comprising more than 55% of carbohydrates, less than 30% of fat and about 15% of proteins. This view is currently shifting towards a more comprehensive framing of dietary needs as a global need of various nutrients with complex interactions, instead of per nutrient type needs." - the source used here, which allows to put some perspective (hence the "historically") cite the NIH as the source of this advised composition. --Signimu (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Please explain reverts

@Alexbrn: in the Body weight section we discuss that there are sources that are of bad quality so we will not use them, fair, but then we use one of the bad quality source later [[8]], why is that ok, either take that sentence away, or at least say that it is of bad quality?? (note that in the paper it states that the source is of medium quality, but in the red/green table it is stated as critically low, so it is a typo in the review).

Then, the summary of the [[9]] says 'little or no difference between diets as per high quality meta-analyses', but when you read the actual review there are only 2 of high quality and it states that Bueno 2013 says 'The VLCKD achieved greater reductions in body weight, diastolic blood pressure, and TG, but more rises in LDL and HDL when compared to LFD.' but 'Naude 2014' says both had effect'. So why does the meta analysis say no difference between 2 diets, when they also report that 1 out of two actually had a difference? (if you read the naude review you can see that LCD also actually had more effect, but I guess below significance threshold). I though we should not report the conclusion only, but actually report what the finding where? This is not SYNTH, this is actually stated in the review, or does MEDRS say we only quote the conclusion? It does not make sense? But I'm not sure? --Stefan-S ^talk 16:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so I see where the "critically low" came from. But is the typo in the table, or the body? As for quoting conclusions, that would seem fair enough. What would be bad would be to analayze the material a secondary source considers and come to a different conclusion to the one published. Alexbrn (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Compare the table of other medium and other critically low and I'm pretty sure you will agree that it should be defined as critically low? Also table 11 also states Hession as Critically low, so it states critically low in at least 2 places and medium in one.

But I did not analyse, I just gave more info than than what was stated in the conclusion, if conclusion states 2 say yes, and text states 1 says same/same and one say yes we should be able to quote the full review? Its not that I'm analyzing, I'm just writing what the review says!? Else, can remove other facts that is not stated in the conclusion for other references, without you reverting them ASAP?? --Stefan-S ^talk 16:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I would be very wary of presenting concluding information in a different way to the source. The authors chose to generalize and not qualify their wording and we are safest being faithful to that. Incidentally, I didn't "revert", I modified the text to a verbatim quotation. Again, if the authors decide to represent their a source as "moderate" in their narrative text, that's something I'd be uncomfortable writing-off as a "typo", especially given that the context of the review is the under-reporting of adverse effects. As a compromise perhaps we could just say "low quality evidence" or somesuch? Alexbrn (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Its interesting that the authors that discuss quality of the reviews and discards most of them, declare that their department gets research 'support' from Novo Nordisk? Then they discard all but 2 papers, where one says good and one say no effect and their conclusion is no effect! I find that strange and disturbing. Nevermind!

We must agree that there are either two typos or one??? Right? OK, nevermind again, I just think that we are not consistent. Lets update to "low quality evidence" better than nothing! I don't have time now, but when I was reading the references before where I found a few places where we said things that was not in the conclusion, I will update later and I'm sure you will 'modify' my update. We can discuss again, thanks! --Stefan-S ^talk 14:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It's fine (necessary in fact) to summarize whole papers, but we must be careful to avoid going against the grain of sources' conclusions. Alexbrn (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree, but we must also be careful to not state the conclusion, when the actual paper don't agree with the conclusion, I see that more and more often. --Stefan-S ^talk 15:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Stefan-S, Over at Ketogenic diet#Adverse effects, although this is a narrower field, there is maybe some sourcing we should be considering? Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Un-indent Alexbrn, I did only a quick check (i.e. I skimmed the sources, I did not read every word), and I missed a few refs ..., but for the following

• [10] Is not about side effects, more about the diet, about side effect they say 'Usually these side effects are easily managed and do not present significant problems or lead to diet discontinuation' and only about epeleptic KD, so not suitable?
• [11] is very epilepsy keto focused and states in the second sentence 'First, is the side effect truly due to the treatment or perhaps a result of the underlying disorder', no real conclusion, suggest not suitable for this page
• [12] quite clear that epileptic KD increases the risk, but again, claims diet is very extreme (more so that this page definition of low carb), small study, n=195, I also suggest not suitable for low-carb page.
• [13] talks about 'Polycitra K treatement to reduce kidney stone', so not about getting, about not getting.

So, no I don't think any of these fits this page!? --Stefan-S ^talk 15:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

No benefits for people with Type 1 Diabets? Really?

What about this?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899900714003323?via%3Dihub

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/141/6/e20173349

https://asweetlife.org/american-diabetes-associations-ceo-talks-about-her-low-carb-diet/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.224.224.247 (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Where are you finding "no benefits"? I don't see that text in our article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

"There is little evidence for the effectiveness of low-carbohydrate diets for people with type 1 diabetes."

Of course there is Evidence. Even the American Diabetes Association recently recommends it.

https://www.dietdoctor.com/american-diabetes-association-endorses-low-carb-diet-as-option — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:EF:1F1C:653D:84E1:50D8:9EB8:9CFF (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

What we have is a good summary of reliable sources (and we do not say "no benefit" but have more nuanced content). In contrast, no reliable source has been given in above. In particular we aren't going to use crappy sites like dietdoctor.com – our sourcing requirements are at the other end of the spectrum: see WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe learn to use google. Anyway let me help you out:

https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/42/5/731.long — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.224.224.247 (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

And why is the 'The International Journal of Applied and Basic Nutritional Sciences' not a reliable source? Please Explain. Thanks

The article proposed is out of date when we have PMID 30362180. Alexbrn (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The 2019 ADA consensus report says otherwise: 'Reducing overall carbohydrate intake for individuals with diabetes has demonstrated the most evidence for improving glycemia and may be applied in a variety of eating patterns that meet individual needs and preferences' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:EF:1F1C:653D:84E1:50D8:9EB8:9CFF (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

As quoted in our article. Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe change this sentence then 'There is no good evidence that low-carbohydrate dieting confers any particular health benefits apart from weight loss' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.224.224.247 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

No, because the ADA don't say there is. Reducing carbohydrate intake (they single out sugary drinks e.g.) does not mean going on a low-carb diet. They specifically recommend against any diet with pre-determined macronutrient ratios. Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

They do not 'For select adults with type 2 diabetes not meeting glycemic targets or where reducing antiglycemic medications is a priority, reducing overall carbohydrate intake with low- or very low-carbohydrate eating plans is a viable approach' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.224.224.247 (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

T2D is different, but we say "Low-carbohydrate diets can be useful to help people with type 2 diabetes lose weight, but 'no single approach has been proven to be consistently superior'". We are bound to represent these sources accurately, and not skew them like the low-carb fans have been doing all over the web. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thats a resonable approach. Still, there is a huge debate if low-carb diets could benefit Type-1 Diabetics. The Article should reflect the current discourse, and thus be a little more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:EF:1F1C:652C:2CE2:4EB2:E1C:DDE3 (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

We would need a source for the "huge debate". The position in reputable sources seem fairly settled that it's a viable approach for some, but there simply is no best one-size-fits-all diet for T1D. Alexbrn (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Bias in Article?

I feel like there is an anti-low carb bias in this article. I can find multiple sources (Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Harvard) in addition to the peer reviewed papers the previous editors scrutinize that back up enhanced fat loss with low carb diets. Am I missing something? Sean Egan (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources for biomedical information must be WP:MEDRS; the sources used for this article are very strong and do not support any significant "enhanced fat loss with low carb diets", so Wikipedia reports that. Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I second that this article has anti-low carb bias. I agree that biomedical information must be WP:MEDRS; but that article states "Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints." There are no varying viewpoints here. TomboPC (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Great. All you have to do is bring reliable sources to support what you want to say. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 22:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The bias is rather strong and evident in many places. The article totally disregards the positive effects of low-carb and ketogenic diets on metabolic syndrome (which is not mentioned once). There are tens of studies, even RCTs, on the topic (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13668-018-0235-0), for instance, https://insight.jci.org/articles/view/128308 demonstrates reduction of MetS symptoms even when no reduction in body weight occurs. In the discussion of "Cardiovascular health", only an increase in LDL is mentioned, not the positive effects on LDL particle sizes / phenotypes. The section "Exercise and fatigue" suggests that we have some definitive conclusions about markedly worse exercise performance on low-carb diets, but we surely do not: there are potentially also some positive effects, and carb restriction is successfully employed by top athletes in various fields (Bolt, Froome, ultramarathoners etc.). The evidence we have on the topic demonstrates that performance impairment is typically either small or entirely negligible (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5384055/), and apart from highest-level athletes, the health benefits from carb restriction likely far outweight any impairment of exercise performance.

As for "There is no good evidence that low-carbohydrate dieting confers any particular health benefits apart from weight loss" in the introduction?! A blatant lie, IMHO, see the MetS stuff above or just consider https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5452247/: "Three meta-analyses about the effect of KD on cardiovascular risk factors were published recently [90,91,92]. Their conclusions are *unanimous* about general positive effects, but not unanimous about each single variable. Santos et al. concluded in 2012 that low-carbohydrate diets lead to a significant decrease in body weight, BMI, abdominal circumference, both systolic and diastolic blood pressure, triglycerides levels, fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c, an increase in HDL cholesterol levels, and no change in LDL cholesterol levels." (That [92] somewhat disputes this, but it's the infamous Naude review lacking credebility and should have come to an opposite conclusion, see e.g. http://www.samj.org.za/index.php/samj/article/view/11900/8062.) What kind of evidence would the author like to see? For discrediting low-carb diets, case reports of extremely rare cases are enough (e.g. the referenced ketoacidosis study, and the allegiations of possible risk of kidney stones, which references a review not published in a research journal which only mentions "have been suggested, including increased risk of kidney stones and osteoporosis", with no citation whatsoever as far as I can see), but for benefits, RCTs and metaanalyses are "no good". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.102.143.115 (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Any biomedical content needs to be based on up-to-date, high-quality secondary sources, per WP:MEDRS. PMID 28534852 is from MDPI, which is not a reputable publisher. In general we know from PMID 30194696 that much of the research in this area is of poor quality, and that research with eye-catching results tends to have been particularly poor. Anecdotes from sports celebrities, or letters from fringe diet figures like Zoe Harcombe, are the opposite of what we need for sourcing. Are there any good sources we're missing? In general this article needs to summarize the WP:BESTSOURCES and not scrape around for sources to support a particular POV. (Add: the kidney stone material was weakly sourced; I have improved this! Thanks for pointing this out.) Alexbrn (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Is https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6416/764.long a source credible enough? I find it very fitting to be referenced in this article, perhaps in a short section on metabolic syndrome, where lower-carb diets look especially successful in increasing HDL and decreasing serum triglycerides and HbA1c. Also the following section from that article looks to me like an example of secondary sources Wikipedia is seeking for medical information. "The most recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses have concluded that carbohydrate-restricted diets tend to outperform low-fat diets for short- to medium-term weight loss, especially in trials that involved a ketogenic diet (9, 10, 54, 61). Whereas individuals with insulin sensitivity seem to respond similarly to low-fat or low-carbohydrate diets, those with insulin resistance, glucose intolerance, or insulin hypersecretion may lose more weight on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet (62, 63)."

That's the level of sourcing we want! The only slight caveat I'd enter is that the lead author, David Ludwig (physician) is a well-known promoter of low-carb diets via his books, and while we can assume the peer-review process generally take care of any conflict of interest, any WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims would probably need corroborating sourcing. We probably don't want a section of "metabolic syndrome" since the topic as we treat it, is already split up more granularly than than (weight, diabetes, CV health). Alexbrn (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Low-glycemic index diet and low-glycemic load

Hello, How come there is not a specific low-glycemic diet and it redirects to Low-carbohydrate diet? To my understanding they are notably different: low-glycemic diet allows or promotes eating carbohydrates but mainly those with low-glycemic index (< 45-55) or low-glycemic load. "Unlike their no-carb counterparts, low glycemic eating plans do not restrict carbohydrate intake altogether." from https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/the-truth-about-lowglycemic-diets

On the other hand, in the Low-carbohydrate diet article, there is only one paragraph that refers to low-glycemic concept, and it is located in the "Modern low-carbohydrate diets" chapter, in between Atkins diet (not the same concept or approach) paragraphs.

Finally, it looks like low-glycemic diet health effects has a good or at least decent science backup, especially in relation with Diabetes, Heart Disease, Weight Management, Pregnancy and others: https://www.gisymbol.com/the-science-of-gi/

Even if there is some controversy, don't you think it would be better to separate the topics in different articles?

I will be glad to hear your point of view. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjuygift (talk • contribs) 10:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The redirect would be better to Glycemic load, and that article could be expanded with a "Dietary regulation" section or somesuch. As you observe, this here is really a different topic. Alexbrn (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Decreased appetite on ketogenic diets

I cited a meta-analysis concluding about ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets that "individuals adhering to KLCD were less hungry and had a reduced desire to eat" and "the clinical benefit of a ketogenic diet is in preventing an increase in appetite". My edit was undone by User:Alexbrn because "these findings were focused on VLEDs, not ketogenic". The abstract mentioned both VLEDs and KLCDs. I don't feel it focuses on one more than the other, but even if it does, it specifically doe talk about the ketogenic diet. What am I missing here? I don't have any COI, and if anything, my edit went against the purported value of keto for far loss. -- Dandv 02:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The findings were about VLEDs; the evidence of ketogenic diets was much more limited. Alexbrn (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

What made you conclude that the findings were about VLEDs, and how does "the findings were about VLEDs" render null the two clear statements from the abstract that I quoted above? -- Dandv 00:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not concluding anything, but the paper concludes the effects were well-evidenced for VLEDs, but much more limited for ketogenic diets. You have read the paper I take it? Alexbrn (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Updated

I updated the first section of the article. I felt like it needed more explaining.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowdragon333 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on Wikipedia medicine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Saturated_Fat,_shifting_consensus,_Cardiovascular_disease_(CVD)_,_and_general_health. Please feel free to participate. Thank you.FrederickZoltair (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Bias

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article reads like it was written by the corn syrup industry. There are debates about nutrition, but this fails to present any of the abundant arguments in favor of keto diet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9500:469:85FA:53FD:E82A:D7CC (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

My diet is keto friendly I eat about six eggs everyday. This article needs to be fixed. Abd Lomax carnivore (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This page is not a chatroom. Nobody cares what you eat. See WP:TALK. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biased article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am quite well known in the low-carb community and more recently the carnivore diet community. This article is very biased against low-carb and was probably written by vegetarian activists. I have been doing low-carb for over thirty years and the last two carnivore. Can we make the article more neutral? Abd Lomax carnivore (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, if you have the WP:MEDRS sources for it. Do you? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

There was a new study by Harvard university done a few weeks ago that proved the carnivore diet improves health, my friend Shawn Baker was involved with the questionnaire data. This article is biased because you will not mention the study Abd Low carb (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:PRIMARY and not WP:MEDRS. Wikipedia is "biased" twowards more solid knowledge. See WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Willgriffen2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Low-carbohydrate diet - revert

A related the citation was removed through revert for "misattribution/damage". Need more details. --Zaurus (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Your citation doesn't lead anywhere. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Oops. edited. --Zaurus (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The issue was that this was attributed to the BDA, but in fact it's Hannah Ellis's "keto diary" that appears on the BDA site. Also we can't say a diet invented in 1921 has been used "for centuries" (yes, I know one weak source says this: it's not reliable for this claim). Alexbrn (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Weak ≠ misattribution/damage, but point taken. I've noticed you restored one of my edits. Thanks. --Zaurus (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think part of the problem (my error) is that I missed one of the sources had been removed at some point from the article, verifying the (unexceptional) "fad" moniker. So, in that context, its removal seemed odd! Alexbrn (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Ketogenic vs. keto

Why are there two sections: "Ketogenic diet" and "Keto diet"? How are they different? Don't bother reply here; please clarify the article. Daask (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a total mess. Probably best served by deleting the whole "keto diet" section. Alexbrn (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Shortcomings in this article

The ketogenic diet is not treated in sufficient detail here considering that the stand-alone article for the "ketogenic-diet" treats exclusively the diet as an epilepsy treatment. Furthermore are clear biases apparent across the entirety of this article, an excessive use of biased language, aswell as a failure to present counterarguments or even claims. A lot of the topics in this article are disputed, but are here dishonestly presented as consensus. 80.81.14.47 (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia treats the ketogenic diet as high-quality sources do. If we're missing any you need to raise it at the ketogenic diet article. Here too the WP:BESTSOURCES are key. Any we're missing? Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia could write quite a lot about ketogenic diets for weight control (esp. wrt diabetes) and sports medicine. Those aspects don't belong in the other article. There are reliable sources on this. Despite the popularity of the subject, it remains strangely neglected. -- Colin°^Talk 16:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I find it strange that ketosis as a deliberate diet effect is treated as though it is the same as diabetic ketosis. These are quite different things. This is misleading - diabetic ketosis is life threatening, while simply being in ketosis happens for most people overnight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.24.189 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I attempted to update the info in this article about the safety of the ketogenic diet in children with epilepsy. In support of the statement that the ketogenic diet was safe in children with epilepsy I cited [14] My edits were reverted.sbelknap (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Because all the epilepsy treatment material is discussed at Ketogenic diet, as stated in the WP:ES. Bon courage (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)